For Spracs argument, a brief on how Constitution lovers view Capital Punishment.
"Capital Punishment is an extreme exertion of state power and is of little use in a free society, while it is of great use to a tyrannical government. Proponents of capital punishment believe that such punishment may be justified as a deterrent to particularly atrocious crimes and as a means of keeping dangerous individuals permanently incapacitated. Furthermore, if people commit crimes, they may sacrifice their rights; if the legal system is legitimate, perhaps capital punishment is justified.
They also believe that penal justice in general should not exist. On this view, all penalties, including capital punishment, should be abolished. Others that support it, do so on self-defense or retributive justice grounds. Constitution lovers believe in the right and occasional necessity to resort to violence for police purposes.
There is also the fundamental problem of the possibility of error, or even outright framing of the accused. To this effect, lack of trust in government to make decisions (including life-and-death decisions) competently or for the best motives may confound the issue.
In any case, to anarcho-capitalists, making judges, police officers, and other law enforcement personnel just as responsible for their acts as any citizen, with no privilege or special right or exemption, will prevent abuse of force in general, and of deadly force in particular. Walter Block went so far as to say, "We have seen that in the constitution lover's philosophy, the death penalty is justified for those whose crimes rise to a sufficient degree of severity. Surely, there are heads of state whose evil deeds many times eclipse such a level. Thus, it would altogether be justified to end their lives by violence."
